On the fourth anniversary of the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), President George W. Bush declared that the federally-led reform is making
measurable progress. In response to Congressional efforts to amend the legislation,
including those from his own party, the President pointed out, “I’ll fight any attempt to
do that. I’m just not going to let it happen. We’re making too much progress.” (Bumiller
2006, pA19). Celebrating the occasion in a high performing, predominantly minority
school in suburban Baltimore, the President cited rising fourth grade performance in
reading and math as evidence that the law is working. This is in sharp contrast with
another Republican administration a quarter of a century ago. In an interview with the
New York Times during his first month as the US Secretary of Education, Terry Bell
pledged his commitment to President Ronald Reagan’s proposal to abolish the
department and said that he was “not sure that we need department-level cabinet status.”
(New York Times 1981 p. 13.) Another failed attempt to abolish the agency was led by
the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 1995. Clearly, elementary
and secondary education has emerged as a priority in the Republican administration
within a generation.
As education gains national attention, our system of intergovernmental
governance and management faces the challenge of institutional redesign. Two sets of
policy developments tend to contribute to new ways of thinking about the organization of
public education. While one policy trend is related to the changing federal role, the other
comes from state and local sources. Clearly, there has been a gradual shift in the focus of
federal education policy. During the Great Society Programs of the 1960s and the early
1970s, the federal government expanded its grants-in-aid system to promote equal
2
Convention